| Revision as of 13:47, 15 November 2006 edit72.91.4.91 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 11:39, 22 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (89 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| *'''THIS PAGE IS WORK IN PROGRESS, FOLLOWING OTHER USERS COMMENT I AM IN THE PROCESS OF REBUILDING WITH THE ENTIRE HISTORY PLEASE ALLOW ME TIME TO DO SO''' | |||
| ==Welcome!== | |||
| ], the 💕! You don't have to ] to read or edit articles on Misplaced Pages, but you may wish to create a account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several ], including: | |||
| *The use of a ] of your choice, provided that it is ]. | |||
| *The use of your own ], which shows when articles you are interested in have changed. | |||
| *The ability to ]. | |||
| *The ability to ]. | |||
| *The ability to edit ]. | |||
| *The ability to ]. | |||
| *The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website. | |||
| *Your ] will no longer be visible to other users. | |||
| We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and ''']'''. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, make sure to ] your comments with four tildes ('''~~~~''').--] 18:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: ] == | |||
| Done. :) Thanks for the request. ] 08:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Blocked == | |||
| hi, | |||
| sorry i;m abit lost as to what your message is about, who Luis is and what is not fair and honest? | |||
| jpJP 10:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ]You have been temporarily ] because of your disruptive edits. You are ] in a ] as soon as the block expires. // ] (]) 21:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC) <br clear="both"> | |||
| == Re: ] and BK Followers== | |||
| Hi, okay thanks will keep that in mind. | |||
| just one questions ... who are you ? | |||
| ===Message for admins.=== | |||
| JP 11:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| There is a BK Follower Riveros11, using various IP in the Tampa Flordia 72.xx.xx.xx range, that is trying any trick in the Wiki book to block any other contributor outside of the BKWSU to the above page. | |||
| For the record, I have tried to engage in Discussion, formal Mediation and Arbitration and he has refused to co-join despite being informed. I have also put in a RfC for use of self-published material within the set limitation according to policy. Two admins have agreed that this is inline with policy already. | |||
| Guess I can always rely on 244 to keep fillin my talk page. Guess I need to work on my own crud removal technique.] ] ] 03:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Rather than engage in discussion, Riveros appears to me to just be intimidating folk off with endless and often erroneous Vandalism accusations, including newcomers. I am going to remove those to give the newcomers an easier ride. I have no fear that I am doing the right think. Help .. don't bite. | |||
| ] 23:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == jps reply == | |||
| Greetings, okay, to answer your questions. | |||
| A) yes it is know that they make this assumption of that date and i am aware. you should read my discussion section in the bkwsu archive. it answers alot of your questions. "sekak ram stuff" is fabricated. not much more that i can say about that. the 5,000 year cycle is told to all, depending on how respective they. | |||
| dinosaurs the bkwsu does not talk about dinosaurs. channeling does not take place, another sprite enters and speak. this used happen alot in the old day inthe east when people passed away and it happens today but not very often now. another person can invoke the spirit into there body,depending if that spirit wishes to come back. its a bit like that. | |||
| ==Time to rebuild== | |||
| you have to remember what the bkwsu teaches is not scientific truth. its a spiritual philosophy, there and difference. spiritual knowledge is there is be used and applied in general life situations. people get caught up into the expansion of detail, thats apart of todays culture. scientific knowledge is to there to know and if it helps create new inventions and understanding of reality. don't get mixed up between the two. | |||
| You would enjoy this dvd/book called "what the bleep to we know" it's about quantum physics, not many people are aware of it. | |||
| i hope you are happy with this. | |||
| all the best | |||
| JP 16:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| It sounds like you are going to restore the whole page- if so, I applaud your choice to do say. It raises your credibility in my eyes and probably others as well. I will peak back in a couple of days. ] 02:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == jps reply to reply | |||
| ==Hello== | |||
| I looked over a bit of your request for arbitration. There are many ways to avoid this lengthy, time consuming (on the part of both yourselves and arbitors), process that can sometimes get very ugly. | |||
| I'm a member of two (or maybe even three) Seperate WikiProjects that have could perhaps provide assistance. In any case, I'm willing to provide you with assitance. | |||
| okay i think your completely correct on all the issues and i have been wrong. so what does this mean now? you/pbks win? we all say bkwsu are evil? would they be working with the UN, won peace price and the rest of there achievements the pbks,what achievements have they achieved apart from saying how much better they are then bkwsu. they should at least do something more. | |||
| people are not going to judge an organization based on what they say, but what they do. u just need to see the JAM project, server the world mediation programs they hold etc. you know it's all well and good saying we are great, better etc etc these lot are basic etc. are pbks serving the community? | |||
| As a member of a fairly new religious movement myself, I can sympathise with your passion in this matter. I could tell you TONS of stories, but I would rather assist you both in creating the best article you can. | |||
| i first starting posting because i thought people misinterpreted the bkwsu philosophy. then after answering all there questions with logical answers, i come to realize they that people have there own agenda, my advice to you is to spend 10 min in the evening or morning just simply learning to relax, you can do this at home. and then also write about your feelings towards things. all this will help you to let go of hurts you have taken from bkwsu, but also from other areas of life. dont reply back saying you werent a bk etc etc i dont care. just do what i am telling you to do and you will feel better for it. | |||
| Please leave a message on my talk page, and I can give you both more information about how I can be of assistance. | |||
| JP 23:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| You're certainly free to do whatever you want, but take it from me - it's much better to perhaps see things in a different light and work towards a common goal than go to arbitration. | |||
| Sincerely, | |||
| ] 04:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::PS: With the current neutrality tag on it, I suggest that few readers are going to give much weight to ''anything'' written there, and ''everyone'' loses - including the readers. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 05:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
| ==Vandalism Warning== | |||
| Whoops! Sorry, forgot to sign.] 06:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well heavens, I guess I should have read the talk page before I made my offer. In any case, it still stands. If I can be of service, please let me know.] 07:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Dear .244, | |||
| ==Hello again== | |||
| You are being warned against vandalism in the Brahma Kumaris page. | |||
| I am writing to let you know that I unfortunately need to rescind my offer of personal assistance. Currently, there are great demands on my time - both here and in real life. I encourage you to contact the ], make a ] to the general community, or simply seek a ]. You may also consider posting a message on the noticeboards for various ] that are appropriate to the topic. | |||
| {{blatantvandal}} | |||
| I will reiterate, it is simply best to try to reach consensus with your fellow editors based on the common goal of writing a fair and well-written article. As long as you can at least share this small patch of common ground, there is hope. | |||
| Best, ] 13:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Sincerely, | |||
| ] 05:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Your question == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Jossi, | |||
| that really is not the place for further discussion on this matter ]. What the likelihood of it succeeding without further contention? Why does the same principle not apply to pages on the other major "new religious movements"" Why not go engage them? | |||
| I am asking honest questions, not a rhetoric questions here. | |||
| If you want to discuss this from a spiritual perspective and ask where I am personally coming from on this matter, I am happy to do so. | |||
| Thanks. ] 03:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Opposition to other major "new religious movements" have been described widely in scholarly books and articles. If as you say there is documented material about opposition to Brahma Kumari since 1930, then find it and add it to the main article. Hope this helps. ] <small>]</small> 03:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have references, the question remains, what are the likelihood of being able to post them? ] 03:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you have references, then present these at the talk page. Me or other experienced Wikipedians will assist you there. ] <small>]</small> 05:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hello, | |||
| An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ]. | |||
| On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --] 17:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Please let the ArbCom clerk do his duties. You can use the talk page to raise concerns, and edit the section in which you provide your evidence. ] <small>]</small> 03:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==I replied to you on my talk page== | |||
| Feel free to drop on by and discuss if you want.] 04:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Why screw around with the ToC? == | |||
| "''Why screw around with the ToC''?" | |||
| Because if one does one does not get that big, stupid, useless blank big right eating up half the page in the middle of one's browser when the page loads. | |||
| Is is some new Wiki law not to? Why else was the template made? If it is used at the top then it clashes with the other tags. Placed where it is text flows nicely about it. Simple. | |||
| ] 07:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It doesn't fit in line with all the other articles, and doesn't follow ]. It's there to ''allow'' for specialization, such as on the Main Page. ] (] ° ]) 13:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for that link, I had not seen it before and it interests me. I was finding my way in the dark. However, I don't see any direct link to content table but agree that neither style nor intelligence necessarily rules wiki articles ... | |||
| ::I still that think big empty spaces in prime view spots is dumb and ought to be fixed/changed. May be they need to rethink the look placement of content menu ... a scroll down from the top menu would work. ] 17:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::The point is to give a brief overview of the contents of the article ''before'' readers are smashed with the content of the article. Placing the ToC and the article content side by side makes readers lose focus. I strongly feel the ToC should be placed as it is placed per default, judging by every other article that's community consensus. ] (] ° ]) 17:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Temporary Injunction == | |||
| A temporary injunction has been ] in ]. All editors listed as a party to this case are banned from editing ] until the case is settled. | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee --] 11:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Comment regarding post to ]== | |||
| ], I think both sides share the same concern about editors sympathetic to each other's POV. There are some editors roaming around who give me the creeps too! | |||
| I am strongly denying that there is a co-ordinated team of BK ''editors''. The same sort of accustation could be made regarding your website forum members. Please do not persist in stating such accusations as if they were a fact. We're all in this together and I suggest we learn to live with the current injunction. And that's coming from someone who only made precisly one edit to the article ever and is now currently banned from it ;-) Regards ] 09:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Merry Christmas and Happy New Year== | |||
| Dear .244, Just a brief note to wish you the best in these holidays and the upcoming new year. As always, best wishes; ] 15:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Falling a bit behind on responses== | |||
| Hi ], | |||
| First of all happy new year to you! | |||
| I realise I have a few posts outstanding and fully intend to respond as soon as I can. It's a bit busy for me this week. Hope to get back to you within the next week. | |||
| Cheers ] 07:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. | |||
| ] is banned for one year for a personal attack which contained a threat against another user . 195.82.106.244 is placed on Probation. He may be banned from editing any article which he disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing, especially that relying on inadequately sourced original research. ] is placed on article probation. The principals in this matter are expected to convert the article from its present state based on original research and BK publications to an article containing verifiable information based on reliable third party sources. After a suitable grace period, the state of the article may be evaluated on the motion of any member of the Arbitration Committee and further remedies applied to those editors who continue to edit in an inappropriate manner. Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee. Should any user violate a ban imposed under the terms of this decision, they may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks to be logged at ]. | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee --] 17:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==] case== | |||
| {| align="left" | |||
| || ] | |||
| |} | |||
| You have been accused of ]. Please refer to ] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with ] before editing the evidence page. | |||
| ] 20:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 11:39, 22 February 2023
- THIS PAGE IS WORK IN PROGRESS, FOLLOWING OTHER USERS COMMENT I AM IN THE PROCESS OF REBUILDING WITH THE ENTIRE HISTORY PLEASE ALLOW ME TIME TO DO SO
Blocked
You have been temporarily blocked from editing because of your disruptive edits. You are invited to contribute in a constructive manner as soon as the block expires. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 21:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University and BK Followers
Message for admins.
There is a BK Follower Riveros11, using various IP in the Tampa Flordia 72.xx.xx.xx range, that is trying any trick in the Wiki book to block any other contributor outside of the BKWSU to the above page.
For the record, I have tried to engage in Discussion, formal Mediation and Arbitration and he has refused to co-join despite being informed. I have also put in a RfC for use of self-published material within the set limitation according to policy. Two admins have agreed that this is inline with policy already.
Rather than engage in discussion, Riveros appears to me to just be intimidating folk off with endless and often erroneous Vandalism accusations, including newcomers. I am going to remove those to give the newcomers an easier ride. I have no fear that I am doing the right think. Help .. don't bite.
195.82.106.244 23:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Time to rebuild
It sounds like you are going to restore the whole page- if so, I applaud your choice to do say. It raises your credibility in my eyes and probably others as well. I will peak back in a couple of days. Sethie 02:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello
I looked over a bit of your request for arbitration. There are many ways to avoid this lengthy, time consuming (on the part of both yourselves and arbitors), process that can sometimes get very ugly.
I'm a member of two (or maybe even three) Seperate WikiProjects that have could perhaps provide assistance. In any case, I'm willing to provide you with assitance.
As a member of a fairly new religious movement myself, I can sympathise with your passion in this matter. I could tell you TONS of stories, but I would rather assist you both in creating the best article you can.
Please leave a message on my talk page, and I can give you both more information about how I can be of assistance.
You're certainly free to do whatever you want, but take it from me - it's much better to perhaps see things in a different light and work towards a common goal than go to arbitration. Sincerely, NinaEliza 04:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- PS: With the current neutrality tag on it, I suggest that few readers are going to give much weight to anything written there, and everyone loses - including the readers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NinaEliza (talk • contribs) 05:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
Whoops! Sorry, forgot to sign.NinaEliza 06:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well heavens, I guess I should have read the talk page before I made my offer. In any case, it still stands. If I can be of service, please let me know.NinaEliza 07:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello again
I am writing to let you know that I unfortunately need to rescind my offer of personal assistance. Currently, there are great demands on my time - both here and in real life. I encourage you to contact the Mediation Cabal, make a Request for Comment to the general community, or simply seek a Third Opinion. You may also consider posting a message on the noticeboards for various WikiProjects that are appropriate to the topic.
I will reiterate, it is simply best to try to reach consensus with your fellow editors based on the common goal of writing a fair and well-written article. As long as you can at least share this small patch of common ground, there is hope.
Sincerely, NinaEliza 05:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Your question
Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Brahma_Kumaris_Info
Jossi,
that really is not the place for further discussion on this matter Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Brahma_Kumaris_Info. What the likelihood of it succeeding without further contention? Why does the same principle not apply to pages on the other major "new religious movements"" Why not go engage them?
I am asking honest questions, not a rhetoric questions here.
If you want to discuss this from a spiritual perspective and ask where I am personally coming from on this matter, I am happy to do so.
Thanks. 195.82.106.244 03:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Opposition to other major "new religious movements" have been described widely in scholarly books and articles. If as you say there is documented material about opposition to Brahma Kumari since 1930, then find it and add it to the main article. Hope this helps. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have references, the question remains, what are the likelihood of being able to post them? 195.82.106.244 03:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- If you have references, then present these at the talk page. Me or other experienced Wikipedians will assist you there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 17:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please let the ArbCom clerk do his duties. You can use the talk page to raise concerns, and edit the section in which you provide your evidence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I replied to you on my talk page
Feel free to drop on by and discuss if you want.Sethie 04:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Why screw around with the ToC?
"Why screw around with the ToC?"
Because if one does one does not get that big, stupid, useless blank big right eating up half the page in the middle of one's browser when the page loads.
Is is some new Wiki law not to? Why else was the template made? If it is used at the top then it clashes with the other tags. Placed where it is text flows nicely about it. Simple.
195.82.106.244 07:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't fit in line with all the other articles, and doesn't follow Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style. It's there to allow for specialization, such as on the Main Page. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for that link, I had not seen it before and it interests me. I was finding my way in the dark. However, I don't see any direct link to content table but agree that neither style nor intelligence necessarily rules wiki articles ...
- I still that think big empty spaces in prime view spots is dumb and ought to be fixed/changed. May be they need to rethink the look placement of content menu ... a scroll down from the top menu would work. 195.82.106.244 17:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- The point is to give a brief overview of the contents of the article before readers are smashed with the content of the article. Placing the ToC and the article content side by side makes readers lose focus. I strongly feel the ToC should be placed as it is placed per default, judging by every other article that's community consensus. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Temporary Injunction
A temporary injunction has been passed in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris. All editors listed as a party to this case are banned from editing Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University until the case is settled.
For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 11:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment regarding post to Srikeit
195.82.106.244, I think both sides share the same concern about editors sympathetic to each other's POV. There are some editors roaming around who give me the creeps too! I am strongly denying that there is a co-ordinated team of BK editors. The same sort of accustation could be made regarding your website forum members. Please do not persist in stating such accusations as if they were a fact. We're all in this together and I suggest we learn to live with the current injunction. And that's coming from someone who only made precisly one edit to the article ever and is now currently banned from it ;-) Regards Bksimonb 09:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
Dear .244, Just a brief note to wish you the best in these holidays and the upcoming new year. As always, best wishes; avyakt7 15:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Falling a bit behind on responses
Hi 195.82.106.244, First of all happy new year to you!
I realise I have a few posts outstanding and fully intend to respond as soon as I can. It's a bit busy for me this week. Hope to get back to you within the next week.
Cheers Bksimonb 07:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.
195.82.106.244 is banned for one year for a personal attack which contained a threat against another user . 195.82.106.244 is placed on Probation. He may be banned from editing any article which he disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing, especially that relying on inadequately sourced original research. Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University is placed on article probation. The principals in this matter are expected to convert the article from its present state based on original research and BK publications to an article containing verifiable information based on reliable third party sources. After a suitable grace period, the state of the article may be evaluated on the motion of any member of the Arbitration Committee and further remedies applied to those editors who continue to edit in an inappropriate manner. Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee. Should any user violate a ban imposed under the terms of this decision, they may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris#Log of blocks and bans.
For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 17:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case
|
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/195.82.106.244 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.
Bksimonb 20:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)